Thursday, May 10, 2012

NDP leads, could win plurality of seats

After last week's teaser, Harris-Decima has completed and released the full results of their regular two-week survey. It increases the NDP lead by one (the last week must have been a good one for them) and points to the New Democrats being capable - for the first time, I believe - of winning the most seats in the House all on their own.

Since this poll incorporates the data from Harris-Decima's release last week, it is more instructive to compare the results to their last full two-week survey of Mar. 22 to Apr. 2.

The New Democrats are up two points since then to 34%, while the Conservatives have dropped four points to 30%.

The Liberals are up one to 20%, while the Greens are unchanged at 8% support.

As you can see, the weighted averages of all polls now give the New Democrats an outright lead of 33.4% to 32.4% for the Conservatives.

Harris-Decima shows a remarkably close race in Ontario, with the three parties virtually tied. The Tories are down nine points since the end of March and beginning of April to only 32%, trailed closely by the NDP at 31% (+5) and the Liberals at 28% (+4).

Things are stable in Quebec, with the NDP down one point to 38% and the Bloc Québécois up three points to 27%. The Liberals are unchanged at 14%, while the Conservatives are down two to 12%.

The NDP leads in British Columbia with 39% (-5) and Atlantic Canada with 44% (+8), while they trail in second with 39% (+5) in the Prairies and 17% (-2) in Alberta.

The Conservatives are ahead in Alberta (55%, +1) and the Prairies (43%, -2), and are second in British Columbia with 32% (+2). The Liberals hold second in Atlantic Canada with 30% support, unchanged.

The seat projection gives the New Democrats the plurality of seats for, if I am not mistaken, the first time here on ThreeHundredEight. It is likely the first time since at least the late 1980s, in that brief period where Ed Broadbent was on top.

With Harris-Decima's numbers, the New Democrats would win 128 seats, with the Conservatives winning 112 and the Liberals 58. The Bloc Québécois would win nine seats and the Greens one.

The NDP wins 17 seats in British Columbia, one in Alberta, 11 in the Prairies, 27 in Ontario, 55 in Quebec, 16 in Atlantic Canada, and one in the North. In the 338-seat House, they would likely win 137 seats (a decrease in share from 41.6% to 40.5%).

The Conservatives win 15 seats in British Columbia, 27 in Alberta, 16 in the Prairies, 47 in Ontario, four in Quebec, two in Atlantic Canada, and one in the North. In the expanded House, their share would likely increase from 36.4% of all seats to 37.9%, or 128.

The Liberals win three seats in British Columbia, one in the Prairies, 32 in Ontario, seven in Quebec, 14 in Atlantic Canada, and one in the North. They would likely win 62 seats with the new boundaries.

Harris-Decima lays out the path to a Mulcair victory - the NDP continuing its dominance of Quebec and winning British Columbia and Atlantic Canada, while increasing their representation in the Prairies and Ontario. But the New Democrats actually need the Liberals in Ontario, as in this case it is that party that unseats a lot of Conservatives and gives the plurality of seats nationwide to the NDP.

The Conservatives are certainly in trouble if the race in Ontario becomes as close as this. They have faltered greatly in Atlantic Canada to the benefit of the NDP, and are trailing in British Columbia in almost every poll. That is a somewhat varied clientele for them to have to win back, especially when you add Saskatchewan to the mix.

But has Thomas Mulcair's honeymoon hit its peak? Have Stephen Harper's troubles caused his party to hit rock-bottom, and the only way to go now is up? Or is this what we can expect for the next three years, the two parties vying for top spot in the mid-30s, much like the Liberals and Conservatives did for most of the minority era? Interesting times.

And it's worth noting that Mulcair is plainly more capable (and practiced) than either Dion or Ignatieff in handling his image.

Btw, Mulcair never said that there was a US conspricy and that Bin Laden was actually alive. Mulcair doubted that there were photos showing Bin Laden reaching for a gun. Nothing more. Go back to CBC or youtube (or wherever) and watch the Evan Solomon interview and the follow-up. Even if you don't bother, that non-story happened ages ago - how has it affected Mulcair's popularity?

Let's not forget Mulroney was the greenest PM that Canada ever had. He put in the acid rain treaty and started the discussions that led to the Kyoto Protocol. But now Harper is erasing everything that Conservatives used to stand for and putting in his Reform and tea-party style policies.

Eric, you edited but I guess you didn't believe me when I said the NDP had a lead in 1990. Here is a link to a Gallup poll from January 1991, where they had 43%. This was after Broadbent left.http://www.library.carleton.ca/sites/default/files/find/data/surveys/ascii_files/gllp-91-jan101_1-doc

Comparing the NDP's strength now to its strength in the late 80s and early 90s is not a prudent thing to do. The NDP had unpopular governments in Ontario and BC at the time of the 1993 election, and the Liberals were a far strong party in 1987 then they are now. Currently NDP support is on the upswing pretty much everywhere other than Alberta. There aren't unpopular, recession-mired NDP governments anywhere, as there where in Ontario and BC.

There are still unpopular NDP governments in Canada. There are the Saskstchewan NDP and Manitoba's Selinger NDP. The former got decimated in the last election because the Sask Party handled the economy very well while the NDP couldn't. The latter is getting tired, dishonest, and hated by the people.

"PS - If its a two person race between the CPC and the NDP those LPC numbers will not hold. The center will be torn in half as each party appeals strategically to stop the other."No that won't happen I'm quite sure. The blue Liberals already left for the Tories in the 2011 election and appear to still be with the Tories in these recent polls. You can't predict anything in politics so definitive statements such as "The following will happen. Period." are not that useful. That said, I'm quite sure the centre is not dead in Canada despite what many people keep saying.

Actually anon that's not correct. In BC, for example, we tend to split left and right provincially. And while the right has prevailed in the past, the left still wins a lot more than 10 to 15 per cent. I realize the CPC wants the Libs to dissapear so it can take advantage of a left-right split, but that simply isn't going to happen. The CPC is starting to slip. As that progresses, the Liberals will swing to their natural place, the center-right, and start picking off CPC support. Actually in one way you might be right, if the CPC implodes like I think it might. Only the left-right split will be between the Libs and the NDP with the CPC picking up the dregs (mostly in the two western Prairie provinces.)

Ryan, as a New Democrat, I have always been an opponent of the strategic vote strategy, especially because it ALWAYS elects Liberals. Vote Lib if that is your preference. But don't vote out of strategy. Vote for what it is you believe. That should be THE ONLY decider.

I haven't seen anything yet that would drag the NDP numbers back down. They may well settle a bit as the current batch of scandals dies down, but also maybe not. The next set of leadership index numbers from Nanos is going to be extremely interesting. If Harper's personal brand has taken a major hit, these kind of numbers could well be the new normal.

The methodology on that poll is sketchy though. It asks a whole bunch of questions that will produce negative sentiments toward the CPC and only at the end asks the vote intention question. It should be the other way around. If they want to measure the impact of those questions on the vote intention, they ought to ask vote intention twice, beginning and end, to see if it changed anything. As it is, that methodology is not reliable.

There's no need for that. Mulcair will take Canada out of the darkness that Stephen Harper has put in. 2015 will be the start of Canada's next progressive decade. The future of Canada would never have looked brighter.

The NDP really needs to step it up in Ontario as even though they trail the Conservatives by 1%, they earn 20 fewer seats (even 5 fewer than the Liberals who are 3% below them). This is why keeping the Conservatives down is more important than obliterating the Liberals because a two-way race in Ontario would mean the Conservatives benefit from an inefficient NDP vote.

Mark my words - if the CPC and NDP are essentially tied in the Ontario popular vote in the next election (i.e. anything like the 32-31 split in this poll), there is no way that the CPC would get 47 seats and the NDP 27. If the CPC to NDP gap shrunk from 18 points to 1 point...it would never be an even province wide swing - instead you would see the NDP coming out of nowhere in ridings they had never previously been competitive in and you would see a lot of replication of the what we saw in places like Scarborough Rouge River and Bramalea-Gore Malton. If anything the Tories would probably be disadvantaged because they tend to pile up supersized majorities in exurban places like Oakville and Richmond Hill while the NDP tends to win rdings in inner cities and in Northern Ontario that are usually smaller.

The CPC's vote in rural ontario is very strong and efficient. While the NDP's base in inner cities is not as efficient or strong. And Northern Ontario don't have a lot of seats, so the NDP still couldn't overtake the CPC even if they completely sweep Northern Ontario. So if the CPC and the NDP are tied in Ontario, I would guess that the CPC will still win more seats.

I have heard and read repeatedly that if the NDP cannot make a big breakthrough in Ontario, then they cannot form government. Yet this projection says quite the opposite and lays the groundwork for an unusual scenario in which Ontario is no longer kingmaker.

Not since 1926 has a party won a federal election on the strength of as few Ontario seats (24) as in this projection (27). And 1926's 24 was proportionally greater than 2011's 27.

Parties have won federal elections without carrying Ontario, but this would be the first time a party won a federal election AND finished third in seats in Ontario.

In an odd way, the three-way fight in "Battleground Ontario" levels the playing field so evenly that the parties' seats seem to cancel each other out.

The result would be a noteworthy role reveral of sorts. Québec, having long relegated itself to the Opposition benches for many years, sees itself as the heart of the caucus governing the nation. The bulk of the Ontario caucus, normally found within the government, finds itself across the aisle.

As a westerner, this is a breath of fresh air. Finally we won't be dictated by arrogant Ontarians who thinks that they are the only Canadians and everywhere else is "the north". Finally we will have an alliance between westerners and Quebec, the only two places where democracy flourishes in this country.

The only such arrogant Ontarians are those in the mainstream media. The people of Ontario are like Canadians anywhere else, they just vote for whom they like and hope for the best. Don't presume that the folks of Bobcaygeon or Jane-Finch feel any better represented by Parliament than the people of Melfort or High River.

The problem with thinking that the Conservative scandals will subside is thinking that the Conservative party's scandals are finite. Any cub reporter journalist is going to be trying to uncover the latest scoop well into the next election cycle. But the biggest scandal of all will be the cumulative deficit under Harper from 2006-2015 (or the next 'snap' election). My money is on Harper not standing for the next election. He'll be a professor at the University of Calgary or some emissary before he stands on a 10 year record of deficits.

You watch Rex Murphy's take on Mulcair's viewon stopping the tar sands to and force the dollardown to the benefit of mainly Que and Ont.Tar sands are the driver of the west and thatwould cause friction and fires Mulcair may notknow how to put out.

First, we don't call it the "Tar Sands", we call it the Oil Sands. Second, Mulcair is just a leader for Toronto and Quebec, and knows nothing about our economy and our way of life. The NDP is just a eastern Canada protest group. If Mulcair is just having low 30's support, then they would be destroyed in the next election by the Tories.

Yes, I know the NDP is formed on the prairies. But they are very unpopular there. Look at Saskatechwan's NDP, and Manitoba's NDP. The first got decimated in the last election, because they can't handle the economy as well as the Sask Party. The second will have governed for almost two decades. They are getting dishonest and tired, and are becoming unpopular. Also, the federal NDP in the last decade focused their campaings on Ontario, Quebec and eastern Canada, while melting away in the west. Yes, its true the NDP is on the upswing in BC, but that's mostly because the right is divided there, and there isn't a single rallying point for right wing BCers to unite under. So while I respect your opinion, I would go so far to say the NDP is a party for eastern Canada.

Oh, and don't get me wrong. I may have said that NDP is unpopular here in the prairies and a party for eastern Canada, but I actually like the NDP, now if only they stood up more for western Canada instead of re-opening the west-east rift, then I would vote for them.

And, if you have paid attention, I didn't say that the NDP was a eastern Canada protest group, I said the NDP "is" a eastern Canada protest group. So nowhere in my sentence have I referred to the NDP's history. So get your grammar right, bud.

You are conflating provincial with federal politics. The split right wing in BC is provincial, not federal, where for some time now the battle is straight up between the Cons and the NDP. In Manitoba, you give the answer yourself by pointing out that the provincial NDP has been in power for almost 20 years, its tired and dishonest - but that doesn't likely have any bearing on the popularity of the federal party - witness the poll numbers. The same applies to the Saskatchewan NDP, whose record in the '90s was the farthest right (openly Blairite, actually) of any NDP government... Many NDP supporters were turned off by their defacto abandonment of traditional NDP policies/values. But for many people, the party of Layton and Mulcair represents a resurgence of those values. Remains to be seen if they'll deliver.

Also, growing up in Calgary in the 1970s, we always referred to the "tar sands"... "oil sands" is a more recent euphemism. Actually, around 1980 I had a dozen shares in the "Syncrude Tarsands"... how rich I'd be if I still had them... ha ha.

Oil Sands (used by Alberta govt/oil co's etc) vs Tar Sands (used by environmentalists) is basically just a PR battle to control messaging through the name itself.

To anonymous - NDP has never had provincial governments in AB so I think its disingenuous to use 20-30 year old cliched rhetorical arguments about other provincial governments. Try tangible facts one day - thanks, bud.

That's because the NDP had a leadership election in the first quarter, which created a lot of new memberships and new revenue for that party. The Liberals hardly had any fundraising events at all in the first quarter, that would explain its decline. Also, the CPC will not increase their fundraising gap in the long term. The reason why their fundraising was increasing in the first quarter is because a lot of its members choose to renew their memberships, or give to an annual fund, at the start of the year.

As much as polls the fund raisng is a leading indicator of a parties success.

The fact that the NDP still trails the Liberals in Q1 fund raising is a HUGE indicator of a Liberal comeback and NDP slide back.

The CPC is up 1.4 M in fund raising from Q1 2009 to Q1 2010. Q1 is the traditional worst (non-election) fund raising Quarter for the CPC .... Christmas credit card payments?

The NDP fund raising is just incredibly bad for a party that Eric and HD is taking seriously as forming the next government. Very few people believe in the NDP them enough to kick in $20 of their coffee money.

I don't think that the CBC has ever had such an outright attack on a non-CPC leader as Rex Murphy did on Mulcair. The lack of CBC support will counter-act the spending on on-election advertizing that the NDP spent a lot of money on defining Mulcair.

Chretien came through Adscam and Shawinigate with solid support from the CBC. Mulcair just voices a bad understanding of economic principles (hardly an NDP or Quebeckers strongpoint) and BOOM the hammer came down.

Boom! Harper is so toxic now he is finished. Fund raising won't change that now. Canadians are sick of his dishonesty and are going for the NDP. Hang on to your fundraising numbers, I know its all you've got with Harper tanking in the polls.

also.. when did we start trusting Alberta polling ;) after what happened a few weeks ago? I was going to mention then it seemed to me polling here has always underrepresented conservative strength and over estimated opposition compared to election result. So while 12% is a reach maybe it fell on the very high end within margin of error and capturing some protest vote that dont actually vote on E-day.

~~ we don't call it the "Tar Sands" ~~ It? by it do you mean the clumpy filthy tar filled sands in Alberta? Why do you call it Oil? It's never Oil in Alberta, it gets shipped where no matter what they do they Tar based Oil is so dirty they passed a law in US forbidding its use in the military. TarSands, its the ethical way to describe the filth.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.